Quote:
|
You would think someone who paid $3K+ for a 1970s football card would be serious enough to notice that the same exact card sold for about 1/65th of the price the week before
|
Not at all--not when you're dealing with post-war issues that are available in droves each week. I would bet the buyer sets his search parameters for 1973 football PSA 10 and doesn't bother looking at anything less--certainly not 8s.
This buyer was looking to upgrade his already #1 set on the registry with a rookie HOFer in PSA 10. He is not likely to get caught on his registry GPA so it may be a case of a guy just wanting to have the best set possible based on some quasi-objective standard known as TPG. If you hand-drew Art Shell in magic marker on an empty and untampered case showing a PSA 10 flip, it would sell.
I am not prepared to give anyone a pass on this one, and will watch this seller's auctions more carefully, along with the first buyer/shiller. Seems to me he could not have achieved that turnaround time on grading unless he paid for expedited service or paid the larger on-site grading fee at the National. Kind of risky to basically spend that for a $40 card unless you are damn confident you will get a bump, and I don't see that card as a sure 9, much less a 10. Maybe I crack it out and send it in when there's a grading special so that risk is minimal, but to rush that puppy through at the higher grading fee seems strange to me. BTW, there is no chance that grading at the National is purely blind--they often know who is submitting what and you are beyond naive if you think otherwise, so maybe that played a factor. I won't go off the deep end with accusations, but this surely isn't passing the smell test with me, particularly given the apparently uncontroverted fact that there was shilling.